I would support an idea of amending the motion in order to allow for several days of hearings so that we can actually get some expert testimony. Having just exchanged with the bill's proponent, whom I respect and whom I thank for bringing it forward, I'm not clear that the answers she provided are necessarily legally accurate. I'm not saying that in a derisive way. It's just that it's impossible for one person to have all of the legal facts related to a very complicated piece of legislation.
I certainly don't have all those facts, but, for example, I would like to know what happens to the claims of small business people who have done contractual work for a business and then the business goes bankrupt. Then the small business whose employees are not covered by the priority listing in either this bill or in the existing bankruptcy and insolvency legislation would potentially be pushed further back still.
I'm also not clear yet on whether or not this bill would provide for companies to continue to issue collateral in order to get loans that are necessary to hire people in the first place. I would like to know more.
I think the goal here that we all share is to protect pensioners in the event of a bankruptcy and to make sure that the bill actually does that and does not unfairly harm other players: small businesses, workers for those businesses, other pensions that have lent to the company that is going bankrupt, future workers who may not get hired if companies can't get financing. All of that stuff needs to be examined. Maybe, when we examine it, we will conclude that the bill is still optimal and needs to be passed, but we can't make this kind of a rearrangement of our bankruptcy, insolvency and creditor protection legislation without a single witness other than the person moving the bill. I have never seen something of this nature pass without a witness. It would be pretty revolutionary to do this without witness testimony, and I think unnecessarily so.
I think everyone here is acting in goodwill to try to get hearings quickly and get us all informed so that when we finally go through clause-by-clause study and, hopefully, pass it, we know what we're doing.
I would support an amendment—not a vote against Mr. Lemire's motion but an amendment—that would allow for some days of hearings and expert witness testimony.